Jump to content
Baseops Forums


Registered User
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by jice

  1. Fair enough. In that case I do hope this works out for you in the long run. Honestly, I’d recommend just taking your licks and moving on. The nice thing about mistakes is that everybody makes them. Some people get hammered for them, most don’t. The person deciding whether to hire or promote either knows that or is an asshole; if you learn, grow, and move on, you’re a self-contained asshole detector.
  2. Tex, Do you think you made a mistake? If so, which? I know we like to get spun up about how dysfunctional our system is. AND IT IS! But! [still not a lawyer] This is not and never will be a test case at the Supreme Court. This is an administrative action for a lapse of judgement. The fact that this conversation is happening is evidence of that. You could try to sue and threaten to your heart’s content, but if your CC wants to give you a referral because in his opinion (and what will be the military’s official opinion) you don’t meet standards then it’s going to happen. Honestly, it sounds like you don’t believe that what you said was a mistake. Step one in making this better for you is understanding why so many people are upset. Step two is internalizing that. If you can’t: fake it. Step three is demonstrating that you have the ability not to make racist or sexist remarks that might discredit the military. In my opinion, your ADC’s advice of falling on your sword and taking full responsibility was your best chance. If your rebuttal tried to claim misinterpretation, you’re fooked. Sorry dude, it sucks. There are some things you can’t say in the wrong place. If troll: nicely done.
  3. Yeah man... it’s communication. The message is what matters.
  4. Bro, It looks to me like you made an unsolicited sex joke about a social awareness movement about sexual assault... on a forum created for Air Force officers. Does anybody honestly think that’s in good taste? The punishment: Harsh, ridiculously so. My opinion: should have been handled with an “are you fvcking stupid? You just occupied literally hundreds if not thousands of man hours that won’t be spent on combat capability...” I’m assuming you’re a young pup. In hindsight, are you surprised at the reaction? Do you think the time spent by people defending you is worth the punchline? How many lady ADCs have jumped to your rescue? How about broettes in the squadron? Like I said before, the punishment does seem harsh (again, no context of your value to the squadron). Find an ADC and/or civilian lawyer who will do a great job helping you navigate the process. Hope to get that referral stopped (within the CCs authority) and the UIF either not created or removed before your next promotion opportunity (within the/a CC’s authority). Then, choose wisely where you want to play with fire. I honestly hope it works out for you. Sometimes learning hurts; doesn’t sound like this needs to hurt this much.
  5. And also don’t be a dickhead. We’re equally guilty of being ignorant and often more guilty of believing that we’ve earned that right.
  6. Recognize that when people feel compelled to say “officer first” they usually mean “aspire to be a leader,” and don’t understand how that works in the flying world. Also realize that the type of leadership that happens in combat aviation is inaccessible to those who haven’t spent years studying combat aviation. A non-rated Captain with many subordinates may see a rated Captain with none and assume that the rated captain isn’t a leader. They don’t see the briefs with hundreds of pages worth of information conveyed in 65 plus or minus five minutes. They don’t see the planning process in which the mission commander coordinates for every domain, service, and discipline of physics to achieve a goal handed to him by the Army four star. They don’t see the split second decision-making that will drive success or failure. They don’t see the meaningful eye contact when you go over something one last time because ing it up will be a disaster. They see a tired Captain with messy hair, who’s never officially supervised anybody and therefore can’t possibly be a leader. That’s not the non-rated officer’s fault; their exposure is movies about aerial combat that’s portrayed more like boxing than war. Give them time, and they’ll get it eventually... or they won’t, and they’ll be sent to tell you that aircrew aren’t leaders. Be a leader; scoff the people who want you to prove it in a silly way. Fly, fight, and win. Don’t apologize for it.
  7. They also graduated their second WIC class yesterday. They’ve got people who get it in charge and being invited to the right seats at the right tables. Pay attention to Beale, and apply if you want to be part of a revolution in ISR.
  8. 2. Are you saying that sociology as a whole is not to be trusted or only the pop-sociology that we can digest in 30 second sound bites? 1. You’ve told us that women really want to be in historically women’s professions; I’d love to see the science (sociology) and whether there was any attempt at separating correlation from causation. It’s way more difficult than just asking. A) Ask 10 aircrew what their first choice of airframes was when they were two weeks from track select. 6-9 will lie and cite their current airframe; 1-2 got their then-first choice. All others were FAIPS. B) Even if you figure out how to get the truth, getting the why behind the truth remains a problem—know any males who quit dancing, singing, playing the piano, or doing art when it became costly socially? That’s acting on a preference and is a measured choice, but is also counter to that individual’s natural predilection. Not saying it’s impossible or even unlikely, just that the study of such a thing would be difficult. Got a source? “Google it yourself” is fine if you don’t want to point to something specifically. 3. I’ve got a bit of an issue with this one. You use the word progress, as if it’s a march towards a better state. That acknowledges a gradient, two sides. One less desirable, one more desirable. When you say “inflame the issue” when we move too fast, I have a hard time finding an explanation for the “inflammation” that isn’t simply the feelings of those accustomed to the old (less progress) and uncomfortable with the new (progress). I am certain that you don’t mean that we should avoid empowering historically oppressed groups because it might upset people. What exactly do you mean? I think moving towards a less racist world/country/system is worth a bit of discomfort. 4. Honest question: what do you mean when you say ‘human nature’? Plato, Moses, Dennett, and Kant would all reach different conclusions. It’s literally one of the central questions of philosophy. Regardless, agree that the government should stay out. 5. It’s a shame that the most outrageous ideas seem to get the most attention. Wouldn’t it be great if critical thinking skills were sexy?
  9. jice

    UPT Next

    Thanks for the answer about T-1s. Follow on question: Do T-38 trained folks struggle/wash out of heavy FTUs at an increased rate?
  10. jice

    UPT Next

    Honest question: What did you learn in the T-1 that can’t be taught in a sim or extended T-6 syllabus?
  11. jice

    UPT Next

    TLDR: kill IFF Not read up on the plan for UPT 2.5+; assumptions based on the discussion above. We’re all treating IFF as a sacred cow. Let’s be real; it’s an eight week top-off. A program like that can screen, but it’s not enough time to teach much beyond vocabulary and how to fake it for those who don’t have it. I know, I know... the fighter pilot attitude, aggressiveness, intangibles, Excel spreadsheet bombing! More on that later. It sounds like we are downloading expectations for basic airmanship to the basic trainer (reasonable) and at pretty much the same time phasing out our T-1 and T-38 fleets as we field the T-7. What if we killed IFF or, said another way: expanded its scope? All studs who require the T-7 (I think there’s a lot of merit to a single trainer track for some airframes, having not flown them) would start in one squadron, per UPT base, for transition to the new airframe, eventually being selected into a fighter or non-fighter track after two months. The non-fighter studs stay in the jet transition squadron and finish a syllabus similar to current phase III. 3 more months. Basic form and nav focused. AETC, AMC, ACC/ISR and AFGSC have equal seats at this unit’s post-track syllabus development table. Syllabus tailored to airframe with multiple off-ramps for each community’s needs. The jet transition squadron is manned primarily with AFGSC/MAF/ISR backgrounds. T-7 FAIPs start here. The fighter tracked studs finish UPT phase III in what was formerly IFF. Manned by fighter pilots, syllabus written by ACC/CAF and AETC. 6(+) months. Single syllabus to create a what would be a T-7 CMR wingman if the T-7 had real weapons. Begins with advanced formation and progresses to the limit of the T-7, or as deemed appropriate by ACC. No more trying to fix bad habits from a six month phase III in an eight week course. IFF is no longer screening, they’re building the product. Don’t like the intangibles? You’ve got six months to instill the fighter pilot mentality. It’s no longer a program that studs are just trying to get through, they actually have to absorb to survive, and contribute to the squadron. There’s room and time for truly valuable events to build confidence and airmanship. An ADAIR TDY to Nellis could be the capstone. If we’re going to stay ahead of the world, it’s time to rethink the model they copied. And oh yeah, VR and shit.
  12. Depends on whether you read the words or actions. Ever visited the reunification train station? It’s basically built like a movie set; pretty clear nobody actually expects to use it (likely because it will be annihilated in the first 30 seconds of the war).
  13. Tactical advantage? Sure. Strategically: What’s the desired end-state for Korea and does a war on the peninsula get us there faster? More broadly, even if the conflict stays conventional, do we want that unstable smoking mess in the middle of our don’t-call-it-a-Cold War? This. Three generations of Korean military have planned to fight this war so their kids don’t have to.
  14. When there’s not a lot of sky to hang onto, making sure it doesn’t fall out of it is an attention demanding job. There’s as much to do as you’re willing to invest. Some missions are way more demanding than others, but on the ones where you’re not constantly worried about putting the airplane in the right place without bending it, there’s room to be an athlete in other ways. “Optimizing collect” or just paying attention to what’s going around you is a full time job. Lots of folks working hard to make it one of the busiest (and most capable) cockpits in the Air Force.
  15. Yeah, living in Nevada with the option to visit a successful neighboring state does sound great! #stateofjefforson ETClarify: not down with splitting the union
  16. What’s old is new again. (Albeit slightly more ed up and delayed by bureaucracy... and I imagine an MC-12 to be significantly less exciting than O-2 flying.) The McDozen folks who flowed to fighters should all be through their B-courses now. What are the reviews there? The crossflows from all sources who I’ve interacted with haven’t been top of the class, nor the bottom. None have washed out that I’m aware of. Note here: if we want to crossflow, it should be a continuously operating system. In times of max throughput required, or when you need to balance year groups, open the valve. Otherwise, keep a trickle going so that 1) we don’t have to invent a “process” as an aid to avoid decision making and 2) the CAF knows what to do with/how to instruct these people. (Hint: in most cases if your root cause is related to somebody’s personal history, you’re likely two assumptions and a stereotype off the instructional fix.) Next note: Not sure if you intend to sync airframes or units themselves. Airframes: great. Units: WRT light attack, absolutely not. Light attack is a combat role, and folks going into combat deserve dedicated training to stay alive. I do think ADAIR and CTP are likely compatible, given sufficient resources. I’d love to see somebody plop down a 20+ airplane squadron of jets at Beale to service the U-2’s CTP needs while also serving as ADAIR for Fresno, Klamath, Portland, and Nellis. You’d need a cadre of IFF/ADAIR instructors and enough fighter/Adair wingmen to meet demand (you couldn’t expect robust BVR/WVR threat rep with dual qual’d folks alone), but a shared fleet could be beneficial for everybody. WRT ADAIR as a stopping point in crossflow: there just isn’t time, unless you want to severely restrict opportunities for promotion/leadership for those folks. Officership and potential to lead isn’t explicitly tied to quals, but credibility and perception of that person’s value to a fighter squadron are. Rip the bandaid off and fully crossflow or borrow them for ADAIR then send them back.
  17. If you think you want to fly fighters, do it. You can always ask for the door after your first assignment to be useful elsewhere (bet you won’t). Plug for FAIPing: you’ll get three years to figure out where you want to spend the following time. Will build decision room for you and your family. Opens some doors (U-2, B-2), makes other things more difficult. QOL in the U-2 is extremely high with pretty good family life. You pay your dues early and often, but with short trips. There should be one or two U-2 guys kicking around SPS who can tell you about it and help you figure out if you’re the right fit for that job.
  18. Or we embrace the fact that we have an opportunity to maintain operations in an “unconquerable” land and let the geography work in our favor while looking west and East while committing to an expensive 100 year presence.
  19. “Total destruction” only works for people and things, not ideas. As long as the enemy is “XX extremism” in the Information Age, total destruction is not going to play. Do you think it was the atomic bombs that prevented further wars with Japan or the fact that they’ve been essentially integrated into the “western world”? Not a popular idea, but we need to decide what the acceptable level of risk to civilians through acts of terror is and expend minimal resources to maintain that. Then talk about it. Then we focus the military on more existential threats. We can’t continue to live in a societal fantasy of zero risk from terrorism at any price... anyway, back to texting and driving on my way to Dunkies.
  20. I don’t assume your intent is malicious, but I think most here would prefer patience to wild speculation at this point, especially given the absence of your history here. There are people working very hard to get the facts. You’ll be privy to them at an appropriate time for your stake in the matter. Appreciate your patience (and taciturnity) while it gets sorted out.
  21. You know what really pisses me off? Urinals. I mean, why do we have two standards for toilets? It’s so dumb. Nobody even has a urinal in their house unless they’re some kind of fanatic. I just don’t understand why everybody isn’t pissing the same. The standard should be the standard. Urinals are emotion. Sitpissers are logic. Edit to add: trying to go out of this discussion on a lighter note. Appreciate all the opinions; you have my agreement to disagree if you want it.
  22. Totally with you for applying across the board. But! If for some dumb reason we’re unable to do that, I think it is better to accommodate (and consider headgear and hair ‘reasonable’) than not to in the name of “standards”; we’re (mostly) all saying allowing those things wouldn’t detract from the mission in and of themselves as we argue for allowing them across the board. That argument means it isn’t the beard that’s the problem. Somebody not working on the sabbath may be reasonable; it may not. For the same person it may be reasonable at some times and not at others. Depends on the situation. Same for beards. Reasonable accommodation is the name of the game, and I don’t think fear of the masses complaining renders something unreasonable. That’s just a leadership challenge.
  23. Got interested, did a little reading. Of note: There’s a debate that’s been raging Re: warfare on Shabbat since hundreds of years BCE. Generally, fighting, support for fighting (and fighting fires!) are allowed, provided you don’t intentionally start a conflict on Shabbat or exploit it. You can also walk home with your weapons. Regarding your example: Refusing to work on Saturday when I need you to is a problem for everybody. I just don’t see beards and turbans as detracting from a member’s duty or the unit’s ability to function... unless I need them to not disclose their identity. In that case, lose the turban or you get a different job. If somebody has a problem with the AF-sanctioned headgear, that’s their problem. That person should have other things to worry about.
  24. 1) Valid for implication of false dichotomy here as a third party. But! 2) For many, the dichotomy isn’t false. For some it’s a choice between piety and service. Agree that banning display and denying service aren’t the same. However, what if practice and display happen to be the same? Sikh hair (thus turban) is a great example. That’s the intent these exemptions are designed around. (Not to mention, the number of times I’ve heard people say “In Jesus’s name we pray” on others’ behalf at an AF function makes me feel like wearing a different hat is pretty innocuous. 3) Those people already serve. It just so happens that they’re Christians (including Mormons), Jews, Vegans, and Pastafarians. They just don’t have to wear things that are outwardly visible. 4) Here’s the crux of this: they irritate because they seem invalid. That’s fine and good. The dirtbag with the ‘hurt’ knee is a dirtbag and we should all be frustrated. The person who just had ACL surgery is not a dirtbag; I don’t think you’d express the same frustration towards them. Is a religious requirement a valid reason to grant exemption? I think so; if it gets me a more diverse force. (I’m a firm believer that diversity increases problem solving ability, and a larger talent pool doesn’t ever hurt). But... you’re right, people will rankle at “their rights are more important than my rights” arguments... So!.. 5) Totally agree. Change the rules for everyone. If you’re a dude who wants to wear a turban to work, do it. Not going to check up on your religious beliefs. Don’t be a douche. It’s just a hat (unless it’s not), who cares! 6) Not going to touch it. Believe what you want.
  25. I’ll buy that for a $2 bill (for the sake of argument). So then the question is what do we value most? [which detriment are we most willing to accept?] Do we want the Muslim in uniform with accommodation or do we want him to stay home? Thinking about it for a minute: Under conscription, I’d be all for absolute minimization of other-than-service identity. With an all volunteer force, we’re a team of people whose motivations should (in theory) be roughly aligned at entry. The uniforms at Lexington and Concord probably looked like shit.
  • Create New...